Marriage is not like a public transport system: Judge
‘Unmarried lawyers are unfit to argue matrimony cases’ Justice Bhaktavatsala stops a lady advocate’s arguments in a divorce case midway, and tells a married advocate who was also the standing counsel that it would be better if he takes up arguing on the behalf of his client S Shyam Prasad shyam.prasad1@timesgroup.com
Ayoung advocate had not imagined she would be receiving a lesson on married life when she took up a case on behalf of an estranged wife. She was summarily told by Justice K Bhaktavatsala that she was unfit to argue a matrimonial case as she was unmarried. A married advocate who was also the standing counsel in the case was told he had better argue the case. However, despite the peacemakingeffortsofthecourt,thecaseremained unresolved.
The techie couple, 34 and 33, have been fighting the divorce case for five years. After their marriage, they lived together for only a few months and have a daughter who now lives with the mother. After a lower court rejected a divorce plea, the husband approached the High Court. In September last year, a division bench had said that "learned counsel for both parties have submitted that, in spite of granting sufficient time, they could not settlethematteramicablyand,therefore, this matter may be heard on merits".
On Thursday, the case came up before the division bench of Justice K Bhaktavatsala and Justice BS Indrakala. The lady advocate was arguing for the wife while the husband had taken the services of senior designate-advocate MT Nanaiah. While the lady advocate was citing the allegations against the husband, Justice Bhaktavatsala stopped her midway and asked, "Are you married?" When she replied in the negative, the judge said, "You are unfit to argue this case. You do not know real life. Why are you arguing like this? He is your (client's) partner,notastranger.Familymatters shouldbearguedonlybymarriedpeople, not spinsters. You should only watch. Bachelors and spinsters watching family court proceedings will start thinking if there is any need to marry at all. Marriage is not like a public transport system. You better get married and you will get very good experince to argue such cases."
The judge then asked the other advocate who was also appointed on behalf of the wife whether he was married. He said he was, and the judge said it would be better if he argued the case. Thewifethensaidshewaswillingtogo with the husband immediately, while the husband's advocate said they would rather live together for three months and then decide if they were compatible. The judge said he would have none of it, and asked the husband and wife to go out for lunch together immediately and come back.
The judge said, "We feel very bad when such cases come before us. Think of the child and that will be the link between you both." He asked the husband to "take your wife out. Take her out for a coffee or better for lunch. Will you take her to Capitol Hotel?" and told the wife to "go with him." They were asked to speak to each other and solve their differences, and come back post-lunch. He said, "You want money,I will pay for the expenses."
When the couple came back after lunch, the judge asked how much the bill was and who had paid it. The husband said the bill was about Rs 500 and he had paid it. The wife said she was willing to pay the amount to her husband. They indicated that their differences had not ended. The wife said the husband wanted her to quit her job but she could not at this point of time. The husband's counsel insisted that they had to wait for three months before living together again. It turned out that the wife was working in the US and was on leave for three months.
Justice Bhaktavatsala tried to convince the couple, saying, "You will be happy together. In everyfamilytherearedifferences. You have a young daughter and both of you are software engineers. But if you separate, don't think you will have a great time outside. Nobody will respect bothofyou.Ihaveseenthecaseof two doctors who divorced. Both did not get good partners later. You will repent at leisure." The court ordered that the two appear again in court the following week along with their daughter.
